animal studies of attachment ☑️

animal studies of attachment

psychological studies on animals in attempt to explain animal behaviour, or human behaviour through animal behaviour

evaluation of animal testing

basic strengths

-animal DNA for cures (eg monoclonal bodies), display natural behaviours, more ethically acceptable than using humans forwhen long term effects aren’t known

basic limitations

-very unethical (no informed consent, protection from physical or psychological harm, debriefs or ability to withdraw), anthropomorphic bias

animal studies of attachment

konrad lorenz’ research (1959)

half of a clutch of goslings hatched either with their mother or in an incubator (with lorenz being the first moving object they saw)

incubator group followed lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed their mother, even when mixed (imprinting). found critical period of between 13-16 hours after birth

-supports view that having a biological basis for attachment is innate and adaptive to promotes survival

animal studies of attachment

imprinting

imprinting- critical period early for attachment formation + develops a concept of self-identity. if doesn’t occur within the critical period, attachment won’t occur at all and can have detrimental future effects.

sexual imprinting- lorenz observed birds that imprinted on humans would later display courtship behaviour towards humans. experimented at a zoo with peacocks and giant tortoises.

lorenz’s animal studies of attachment

evaluation

-regolin + vallortigara (1955) chicks exposed to moving shape combinations. range of shape combinations then showed to them and they followed the original one most closely; young animals are born with innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development, as predicted by lorenz

-limited generalisability from birds to humans. the mammalian attachment system is different and more complex than birds (mammals attachment is reciprocal) so anthropomorphic bias

animal studies of attachment

harry harlows research (1958)

8 rhesus monkeys caged from infancy with only wire mesh (food dispensing or cloth covered) surrogate mothers to investigate which would have more attachment behaviours directed to it (measured by time spent with each + time spent crying for biological mother)

findings: the baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother and sought comfort when frightened (from a noisy mechanical teddy) in preference to the plain mother; showing contact comfort to be more important to them than food wrt attachment behaviour

when placed in a novel toy room to explore, they were willing in the presence of the cloth-covered mother but hesitant and phobic when the mother was not in close proximity.

effects

harlow followed monkeys into adulthood and found permanent severe effects of early maternal deprivation - most dysfunctional when reared with only plain mothers:

• more aggressive and less sociable

• bred less + unskilled at mating

• neglected and attacked their offspring

conclusion: rhesus monkeys have a 90-day critical period, where after this deprivation became irreversible.

harlow’s animal study of attachment

evaluation: strengths

-important practical applications; helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand lack of bonding experience in arrested development, allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (howe 1998). now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild; harlows research is theoretical and practical

harlows animal study of attachment

evaluation: limitations

-limited generalisability to humans; human brain and behaviour are more complex so anthropomorphic bias

counterpoint: green (1994) states all mammals have the same brain structures on a biological level; only difference in size and number of connections.

-ethically questionable as animals reserve a right to not be harmed (no consent, ability to withdraw, debrief, and protection from harm; distress, long term effects and fear) the pursuit of academic conclusions for human benefit is detrimental to non human species.